A photograph of a mother breastfeeding her premature baby has gone viral after it was deleted by Facebook.
Emma Bond's picture of her feeding newborn Carene was removed after complaints it contained nudity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29831637

WTF Facebook? Why didn't they ask a grown up before they start deleting things.

Facebook have a consistent policy on this.

Women posing provocatively in skimpy clothing = fine.
Women breastfeeding, even if actual exposure of breast is minimal = horrendously offensive.

The policy is to be consistently fuckwitted.

In this case, there is zero nudity. Someone needs a slap upside the head.

Whoever did the complaining. That's who needs the slap.

But if racism is reported or, as in a case a while back when women's pictures were added to a sort of shame-the-slut-page*, it took them several weeks to make a move, despite massive reportings.

* I didn't invent that name.

babel wrote:But if racism is reported or, as in a case a while back when women's pictures were added to a sort of shame-the-slut-page*, it took them several weeks to make a move, despite massive reportings.

* I didn't invent that name.

It's Facebook, what do you expect? And I don't say that as a slight at Facebook. It just is what it is and that's a social media site which relies on having as many members as possible logging on as often as possible. They don't make these policies as moral pronouncements of what is decent and what is not. Rather it's about keeping people coming back. So what this tells me is that more people will stay away from Facebook over nudity/breastfeeding than they will over racism or sexism, which given the demographic of Facebook users seems about right to me.

Made of Stars wrote:

A photograph of a mother breastfeeding her premature baby has gone viral after it was deleted by Facebook.
Emma Bond's picture of her feeding newborn Carene was removed after complaints it contained nudity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29831637

WTF Facebook? Why didn't they ask a grown up before they start deleting things.

This is part and parcel of the reason why I've deleted my account. They need to stop dictating their provincial mores in a global platform.

Last week called, it wants its synthetic outrage back.

By the time this thread had been started, Facebook had already reversed its decision and amended its policy.

Strontium Dog wrote:Last week called, it wants its synthetic outrage back.

By the time this thread had been started, Facebook had already reversed its decision and amended its policy.

Doesn't mean the outrage is synthetic.

Oh, so now it's obligatory to keep abreast of everything occurring on the internet . Most people don't have the time for that.

(and yes I said abreast)

Follow the money. It has nothing to do with mores, outrage, synthetic or otherwise, morals or anything else. It's about getting bums on seats. Purplerat said it.

It sounds like this was a case of tit for tat, when it went viral. She's allowed to share stuff like that with her bosom buddies, and strangers alike. Facebook, the melons heads they are. Never mind a cup, have a jug of go fuck yourself. Have a couple of em! Never mind titbits, she's a gonna knocker you out with the publicity.

That's a lot of puns to get off your chest.

ED209 wrote:That's a lot of puns to get off your chest.

I saw yours, and acted like a boob.

I think that Facebook automatically removes content when it receives a lot of complaints about it until they get a chance to review it.

If that's the case it's a bit silly to get mad about this, given how many people shared it there was likely a lot of prudes reporting it. image gets removed > human finally gets to review the case > image gets put back up.

Was anyone harmed during this?

Even if it were removed by a human though, why's it that big of a deal? It's a private company they can filter whatever the fuck they want to... It's not as if this is her private photo album. Which is how people treat facebook. Kinda of sad really because do people even have or make photo albums anymore???

Acetone wrote:I think that Facebook automatically removes content when it receives a lot of complaints about it until they get a chance to review it.

If that's the case it's a bit silly to get mad about this, given how many people shared it there was likely a lot of prudes reporting it. image gets removed > human finally gets to review the case > image gets put back up.

Was anyone harmed during this?

Even if it were removed by a human though, why's it that big of a deal? It's a private company they can filter whatever the fuck they want to... It's not as if this is her private photo album. Which is how people treat facebook. Kinda of sad really because do people even have or make photo albums anymore???

That a private company can do what it wants doesn't preclude criticizing those actions.

Boobies are bad, mkay?

Acetone wrote:
Was anyone harmed during this?

Even if it were removed by a human though, why's it that big of a deal? It's a private company they can filter whatever the fuck they want to... It's not as if this is her private photo album. Which is how people treat facebook. Kinda of sad really because do people even have or make photo albums anymore???

I think the same could be said for the criticizing of Facebook policy criticism.

At what level does this infinite regress become acceptable?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Acetone wrote:
Was anyone harmed during this?

Even if it were removed by a human though, why's it that big of a deal? It's a private company they can filter whatever the fuck they want to... It's not as if this is her private photo album. Which is how people treat facebook. Kinda of sad really because do people even have or make photo albums anymore???

I think the same could be said for the criticizing of Facebook policy criticism.

At what level does this infinite regress become acceptable?

Removing images =/= publishing/distributing personal information without your knowledge. Rofl?

I mean criticize away, criticizing what images are deleted or not deleted isn't gonna affect their bottom line. Seems like a waste of energy and time.

Strontium Dog wrote:Last week called, it wants its synthetic outrage back.

By the time this thread had been started, Facebook had already reversed its decision and amended its policy.

Synthetic outrage? Next you'll be blaming the mum for wanting to post pics of her wee one. Nice moves.